[governance] consultations on enhanced cooperation

[Anriette Esterhuysen]

Agree with Parminder and Ian that we should react quite strongly to this.

I propose that our primary intervention could be that the Palais in 
Geneva would be a more appropriate venue for this consultation.

If the space constraints in New York that mentions will undermine the 
openness of the consultation, then surely the most obvious solution is 
to change the venue.

Anriette



On 13/10/10 07:07, parminder wrote:
> Hi All
>
> Find as enclosed an open letter to all stakeholders to participate in 
> what is supposed to be an open consultation on 'enhanced cooperation' 
> in NY on 14th December.
>
> However, the process is hardly open. It does not seem to be even as 
> open as many traditional UN activities are. Both the Tunis Agenda, and 
> the CSTD/ ECOSOC resolution (quoted in the letter) speaks of 'enhanced 
> cooperation' itself as involving ' a balanced participation of all 
> stakeholders '.
>
> It should be obvious that a consultation on 'enhanced cooperation', 
> EC, (which is different from the process of enhanced cooperation ) 
> should be even more open and participative that even EC itself. In 
> fact it should be more or less, within limits of logistics 
> constraints, completely open, though probably also structured enough 
> that all governments, for instance, do get to speak all they want to 
> (that is what they normally like to ensure/protect, UN style)
>
> However, the letter says that non -governmental stakeholders will only 
> be allowed to give written contribution, plus a very tokenistic 
> gesture of allowing just one representative (?? whose rep) to speak 
> during the consultations to summarize the contributions of all non 
> governmental stakeholders (whew!) (in maybe about 5 minutes?). So 
> basically they are calling for an inter-governmental consultation. 
> This is not at all an open consultation, and i think we should not 
> give it legitimacy as such.
>
> In fact, the letter clearly speaks of a "consultation with UN member 
> states, Permanent Observers and other inter-governmental organizations 
> to be held on....."
>
> So, it is simply not the "open and inclusive consultations involving 
> all member states and other stakeholders....." that the recent ECOSOC 
> resolution called for, which resolution has been quoted in the letter 
> itself.
>
> I think all non-governmental stakeholders should refuse to accept it 
> as an open consultation, and write to the SG/ USG immediately about 
> it. If no changes in the format are forthcoming they may all together 
> even agree not to participate in the consultations at all - not even 
> submitting written contributions, and forgoing the 'one rep speaks for 
> all nongov stakeholders' offer.
>
> On the other hand, if there are any genuine concerns of governments 
> that the format should allow enough speak and discussion time for gov 
> reps, which they may feel does not happen in fully open spaces, we can 
> discuss and take them on board to devise a mutually acceptable format.
>
> Parminder
>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
executive director
association for progressive communications
www.apc.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101013/f6c12649/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t